The Ground Zero mosque, part 1

The essential question about the status of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who’s behind the “Ground Zero” Islamic center is plain and simple: Is the Imam an enemy of the state or not? Likewise, there are two further questions which hold the answer to the original question: 1) Does the Imam sanction Hamas or for the matter any other group that falls under the umbrella of Islamic Jihad such as Islamic Jihad itself, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa, et al.? 2) Does the Imam intend to foment insurrection by the manner the G(round) Z(ero) Islamic center is to be founded?

As of now, the Imam has yet to renounce his support for Hamas. (Apparently, Hamas has also recently expressed support for the Imam, so there can not possibly be any mistake as to his philosophical orientation and sentiments.) Likewise, A New York official recently offered the Imam the chance to move his proposed facility to state-controlled property away from GZ. (The current given status of _that_ property is irrelevant in this context.) Imam Rouf denied the offer made by the official. The Imam _still_ intends to open the Cordoba House at GZ, and he apparently also still plans on doing it on Sept. 11th, 2011. Support for Hamas itself makes a person a threat to America. Also, by establishing the mosque that the Imam wants at the location where thousands of Americans were killed in Lower Manhattan and on an anniversary date referencing the same 9/11 destruction, the Imam is clearly and obviously making a grave statement. That statement is unquestionably one of validating the 9/11 attacks. It is also no small coincidence that the doctrine of Jihad stipulates that the overtaking of enemy location is a highly prized conquest. No matter what the Imam and his sympathizers say, there are no legitimate grounds for interpreting this building process in any other way. The true Islamic believers will recognize the new dominance of their religious system over the American way of life, and they will celebrate that dominance while conspiring to generate more attacks on American soil.

Since the question of the Imam’s status is paramount, no other question raised about the mosque can change the status of the Imam or of the project in question. Some people have charged that denying the founding of such a facility is unfair discrimination. This is baseless since the concern that many Americans have is not yet remotely focused on mosques in general let alone on religious temples (though Americans _should_ at least be concerned about the implications of any such building!) The focus is squarely on _THIS_ Islamic center in _THIS_ location. The charge of the mosque's opponents harboring racism obviously is based on a non sequitur since the Muslim faith is practiced by people of myriad races. The charge that the center is only for peaceful means is further overturned by the fact that the Islamic radicals have been waging war on America and other nations for several decades. The war on America easily goes back as far as the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and further on.

As a matter of fact, the Islamic war on America is the _only_ factor that properly elaborates on and determines the status of the Cordoba House project. That is, it is the general context of what America has had to sustain in the way of Muslim attacks that fundamentally sets the terms for how the Ground Zero mosque is to be evaluated. Absolutely nothing else is close to being as of substantial consequence in this regard. (It is ludicrous to evaluate the proposed GZ mosque in a cultural, historical, and philosophical vacuum.) Just as the attack on the USS Cole ship, the bombing of various embassies, the surprise attack on the Marines in Lebanon, and various other Muslim-promulgated atrocities leading up to the 2 bombings of the WTC center in downtown NYC are part of the same war, the Cordoba House project is simply another attempt to destroy America because of its generally pro-reason, pro-science, pro-technology, selfish, and Capitalist orientation which is rooted in the essential ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Islamic Jihad is defined as a cultural effort to bring about God’s will by force according to the Muslim faith. See here: http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

Jihad is a verbal noun with the literal meaning of "striving" or "determined effort." The active participle mujahid means "someone who strives" or "a participant in jihad."

The term jihad in many contexts means "fighting" (though there are other words in Arabic that more unambiguously refer to the act of making war, such as qital or harb). In the Qur'an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, "in the path of God."

By true Muslim faith, the entire point of Jihad is to render the goal of making the world more Islamic. Obviously, America represents the arch-rival and antithesis of Muslims and their faith, so it naturally follows that those of that faith would want to stop and overturn American progress. Lest anyone forget or even be ignorant of the facts, the 9/11 attacks occurred precisely because Washington D.C. and New York City respectively represent the foremost centers of political and economic value to America. The values and virtues as generally best expressed in those two cities are exactly what those of the Muslim faith have sworn to Allah to destroy. There’s every reason to naturally figure that those people behind the Cordoba House project are driven by the exact same philosophy. In war, philosophy isn’t just the fuel, it’s the very basis for a military campaign. The Cordoba House is perfectly consistent with the ever-growing and decades-long Muslim campaign to demolish America. The Cordoba House is a de facto act of war against America given the nature of war in general and the Muslim campaign in specific!

While the apologistic arguments for the Ground Zero mosque are fallacious and tangential, it is worth at least mentioning how they can be differentiated from my argument here. Some supporters say that there are other American mosques and actually there are some mosques in the nearby downtown area, so the GZ mosque is equivalent to the other American mosques and there’s nothing to fear in turn. This line of thinking is naturally wrong because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. Again, those other mosques are _in this context_ currently irrelevant because they are not specifically being founded at Ground Zero let alone on the anniversary of the 2nd WTC bombing attacks. Other people have the effrontery to say that the GZ mosque would actually provide greater sympathy and understanding even to the point of benefitting the Muslim faith. No real American would even have such a consideration since that motive is sacrificial in nature. Further still, as I’ve already indicated the last thing that Americans should be doing is trying to actually benefit Islamic agendas in this regard. If anything, Muslims in America should be humbled and go well out of their way to help wage war against the Jihadists. They should have a particularly grave concern for and fear of the Cordoba House since it obviously will make their own lives more difficult and endanger the very nation they claim as home. Also, arguing that other similar dubious though less threatening constructions exist simply is an attempt to misdirect attention from where it belongs i.e. it's a “bait and switch” tactic. There must be other silly arguments, but my point here is that they are neither remotely compelling, nor logical, nor relevant. It is _far_ more important to communicate a proper argument than to focus on refuting bad arguments let alone irrelevant arguments. That is, given the actual nature of the Cordoba House project, the focus of attention _must_ be on why _that_ mosque should not come to fruition.

The Value of the Tea Parties

I haven’t personally attended a Tea Party event, but I’ve done some related tracking. To this day, there has not only not been much integrated organization for that group in general beyond some Internet linking; there hasn’t been an explicitly dominant guiding philosophy. As Ayn Rand indicated, simply opposing a position doesn’t fulfill the obligation(s) required of having a positive normative philosophy. In other words in this case, for the Tea Party movement to be anti-status quo in government in some superficial way isn’t nearly enough of a surrogate to carry the prospect for American freedom forward. Make no mistake at best, supposed American renegades are merely coasting currently. The Tea Party supporters have some idea of what to oppose, but they have little idea of what to be united by. They really don’t understand what they should be fighting _for_.

America was founded by an explicit guiding philosophy as elaborated in the Charters of Freedom. We haven’t seen anything along those lines in decades as far as the general populace has been concerned. In recent years, a faction of Americans have come to realize that there might be some political benefits to the ideas inside Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_. Still, it’s a long way to go from being merely aware of a potential value as against becoming throughly versed and immersed in a broad-based ideology. Whether someone is involved in the Tea Party movement or not, those Americans who seek greater freedom need to not only become more pro-active in politics, they also need to be more mindful as to the type of ideas that they subscribe to and promulgate.

Though the Tea Party has not been a movement which has had a major power vacuum or usurpation as of yet (since there never was an established intellectual leadership), the movement is becoming ripe for manipulation to outside forces. Coincidentally and recently, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin has been in the news for courting the Tea Party movement. This may be unsurprising, but it’s certainly disturbing. It clearly indicates that Palin is looking for a vehicle to express her ideas; at the same time, it further reinforces that the Tea Party movement hasn’t been particularly aware of how it should be intellectually guided. If any political movement can so readily and easily be influenced by an outside interest which is expressly part of and representative of the very establishment which is supposed to be opposed, then that movement is to be questioned for its motives. The problems inherent of the movement in support of Ross Perot some several years ago come to mind here....

Likewise, it has been mentioned in the news that there may actually be a Tea Party in the form of a political party running in competition of the Democrats and Republicans. This is a decidedly different focus for the Tea Party movement to take. Again, it’s unsurprising that this movement would eventually seek to actualize and manifest ideas into practical reality. Still, the aforementioned intellectual vacuum makes for a further troubling turn of events given the potential rise of a related political party. It benefits no one for yet another political party to be raised if that party hasn’t even clearly differentiated itself in a way that would offer positive benefit to Americans.

The over-arching background for all of this of course is that the Republican Party continues to be bifurcated by the religious conservatives and everyone else who’s been left sidelined. The fact that this division has not been addressed by Republican politicians shows that the GOP hasn’t made any real headway since the days of Barry Goldwater running for the Presidential office. It used to be needless to say that if the Republicans didn’t stand up for individual protection, then no one would. Today, no one in politics stands for individualism or individual rights. This cavernous vacuum still stands as the greatest American issue to be dealt with today.

The recent news about the Tea Parties reveal ongoing issues that need to be dealt with if these organizations are to actually benefit American people. It should be obvious by now that the religious conservatives are overwhelmingly responsible for America’s demise. It is just as obvious that no appeal to that same faction will save or salvage America in any way. As per usual, what Americans must discover is that the very nature of their way of life depends on the identification of the virtue of independence. Americans must realize that to be American _is_ to necessarily be politically free from government tyranny in any shape or form. Americans have had a track record of knowing how to fend for themselves in an economic context. What has left those same people vulnerable to internal political turmoil is their lack of understanding of the importance of intellectual ability in the more fundamental context of rational politics.

Where the Founding Fathers failed to identify the proper intellectual nature of freedom, Ayn Rand managed to single-handedly succeed. She was the very person to signal to Americans what they must to do in order to protect themselves and their general way of life. Neither religion nor Socialism has ever offered the political benefits that the Founding Fathers hoped to leave behind for their successors. Still, the Founders were themselves disarmed by the very people who disarm us today: the philosophers. If Americans are ever to seriously resurrect their country, then they must realize that it is in rational philosophy that they must significantly start investing their time and energy into. The increased reading of _Atlas Shrugged_ is the one true bright spot in our current political landscape, but that book is a work of fiction that contends with politics in artistic terms. Americans must embolden themselves as colonists of early America did by studying the humanities. The important difference that new rational revolutionaries must be mindful of is that an adherence to reason in politics is not an expendable option.